Sections in This Issue:

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
(Senate - September 28, 2017)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 156 (Thursday, September 28, 2017)]
[Pages S6202-S6205]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the Pai nomination, which the clerk will
report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Ajit
Varadaraj Pai, of Kansas, to be a Member of the Federal Communications
Commission for a term of five years from July 1, 2016.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 1:45
p.m. will be equally divided.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I want to speak on the renomination of
Ajit Pai to serve as Chairman of the FCC, the Federal Communications
Commission, to serve for a term of 5 years.
Under the previous administration, the FCC always had the consumers'
back. Back then, that administration's FCC strengthened consumer
protections. It furthered competition, it protected public safety, and
it pushed forward to ensure universal service for all Americans.
Ultimately, the success or failure of the FCC rises and rests not on
the fulfillment of special interest wish lists but on the treatment of
those who are least able to protect themselves and whether their First
Amendment rights, including those of journalists, are vigorously
protected.
Chairman Pai has been a vocal and excessively partisan and often
hostile opponent of pro-consumer steps taken by his colleagues on the
FCC. We have seen that time after time in the previous administration.
Since becoming Chairman of the FCC this year, he has systematically
undercut much of the work done over the past 8 years. I want to give
you several examples.
He has acted to prevent millions of broadband subscribers from
receiving key information about rates, terms, and conditions of their
service. This is called disclosure. He has threatened the expansion of
broadband into the homes of low-income Americans by limiting the
effectiveness of the new Lifeline Program reforms. If that is not
enough, he has proposed sweeping limits on the ability of States and
localities to review and improve the installation of certain types of
wireless equipment. Furthermore, he has supported the moves by the GOP
Congress to eliminate commonsense privacy rules for broadband services.
If all of that is not enough, he has eliminated several media
ownership
[[Page S6203]]
rules, paving the way for a massive consolidation among TV and radio
broadcast stations. Continuing, he has acted as if the way to improve
broadband in rural America is to lower standards and saddle our most
remote communities with slower speed and worse service. He has also
opposed widely supported updates to the E-Rate Program, which brings
broadband to schools and libraries in every State in the Nation and
leaves that critical program's budget--and the American
schoolchildren--in the dial-up era. That is not what we want for our
students. Furthermore, he has curtailed rules designed to help small
businesses, schools, libraries, and hospitals to find competitive
options for high-capacity telecommunications services. What that is
going to do is likely raise the cost of these services and potentially
harm their quality.
The list I just gave does not include the elephant in the room--
Chairman Pai's planned elimination of the FCC's net neutrality
protections. This Senator has been very clear that I oppose the effort
to revoke these essential consumer protections on the internet. I think
Chairman Pai's proposed course is shortsighted, especially when his
preferred approach seems to be the abandonment of the FCC's oversight
on the action of broadband providers. These are actions that directly
impact on the lives of millions of Americans.
In March, I sent to Chairman Pai my deeply held concerns about some
of these actions, and I expressed my sincere hope that his early moves
were not a sign of things to come, but unfortunately my concerns have
only been heightened by his record over the months since that
conversation.
At the end of the day, the FCC has a responsibility to put the public
interests ahead of the powerful special interests. Just as it has been
under the leadership of the past Chairmen and Chairwomen, Congress
expects the current FCC to uphold the laws the Congress has passed and
to enforce the regulations properly adopted by the agency.
The vast majority of the actions of Chairman Pai have served to
eliminate competitive protections, to threaten dangerous industry
consolidation, to make the internet less free and less open, and to
weaken consumer protections for those most vulnerable.
Ultimately, we need an FCC Chairman who has the consumers' backs. We
need an FCC Chairman who is not afraid to use the robust statutory
authority Congress has given to the FCC to protect consumers. Based on
his record, I have serious and longstanding concerns about whether
Chairman Pai really does have the consumers' backs. As a result, I will
oppose this nomination.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
FAA Reauthorization
Mr. MORAN. Madam President, it is nice to see the ranking member of
the Commerce Committee on the floor today. I appreciate that he and I
share a particular view about the privatization of air traffic control.
Today, we are going to presumably pass a 6-month extension for the
Federal Aviation Administration. It was passed by the House earlier
today, and once again we are in a position which, in my view, we
shouldn't be in. We ought to be passing a long-term authorization of
the Federal Aviation Administration. Last year, we did so. The Senate,
with 95 votes, passed a 4-year FAA bill. It was the kind of meaningful,
bipartisan accomplishment that is too rare in Congress today.
I supported that bill, but unfortunately when it was sent to the
House and it came time to meet that last year's deadline, we were
ultimately forced to pass a short-term extension--which I opposed.
Our ongoing efforts to pass a long-term bill, Republicans and
Democrats in both Chambers of Congress, have found common ground and
consensus among the entire aviation community on a wide range of
important issues.
I am talking about reforms to strengthen the Contract Power Program,
one of the most and overwhelmingly popular and successful FAA programs.
That matters a lot to the State of Kansas, and communities in the State
of Nebraska as well, the home of the Presiding Officer in the Senate.
I am talking about streamlining the aircraft certification process
that allows the FAA to focus its valuable resources elsewhere while
generating a positive impact on our economy and job security in the
aviation manufacturing sector. Because, once again, Congress refuses to
set aside the perpetually controversial proposal to privatize our
Nation's air traffic control, we are left, again, with a short-term
extension. It is another one of those take-it-or-leave-it moments that
is occurring here at the eleventh hour in advance of September 30.
We know in the Senate this proposal for privatization will never have
the votes to pass. Yet we keep considering short-term extensions that
are damaging to the aviation community, particularly the airports that
need certainty in planning their infrastructure projects, and they will
be, first and foremost, to improve the safety for our air travelers.
A 6-month extension, in my view, is too short to provide the
certainty that is needed. The grant process, at the Department of
Transportation, will be ongoing, but no airport can plan based upon
whether the FAA is going to be authorized 6 months from now.
I have come to the floor numerous times before to talk about how
Kansas is a special place when it comes to aviation. Kansas has built
three out of every four general aviation aircraft since the Wright
brothers first flew at Kitty Hawk. Today, over 40,000 Kansans earn a
living in manufacturing, operating, and servicing our world's highest
quality aircraft. These aviation businesses and their employees depend
upon our ability to compete in a global marketplace, an ability which
is significantly damaged when we are putting off passage of a long-term
reauthorization bill not just once but year after year.
While general aviation manufacturing is our State's largest industry,
it is not just those manufacturers and their employees who understand
the problems and ramifications with privatization of air traffic
control.
I have often said on the floor that I think at times I get
categorized, as a Senator from Kansas, as a State that manufactures
lots of airplanes and that my views are therefore solely related to the
airplane manufacturing sector. I certainly bring that perspective to
Congress, and I speak often and work often on behalf of the
manufacturing of aircraft. But any of us who represent airports and
communities that are not the largest in the country ought to oppose the
privatization of air traffic control.
This is not the traditional rural-versus-urban argument that occurs
sometimes around here. This is not about little towns versus everybody
else. This is about everyone except for the largest cities with the
largest airports and the most travelers. So this is not about just
Garden City, KS; or Manhattan, my hometown; or Hays, my former
hometown. This is about Wichita and Topeka. This is about Kansas City.
All but the absolutely largest airports would be damaged by the
privatization of air traffic control.
We have said this many times. It is important to the manufacturers,
but it is also important to the survival of communities that I
represent and that all of my colleagues represent across the country.
Everywhere I go in Kansas, I am reminded that ATC privatization is a
bad idea. The idea that we would allow a 13-member private board to
make decisions about the future of airports and air transportation
across the country is troublesome. Moreover, even the major providers
of aircraft and avionics equipment that reside in Kansas--those
businesses that create thousands of jobs in my State--are perhaps even
more outspoken against privatization than anyone. These businesses know
that privatization of the Nation's most complex air system is a
solution without a problem that will ultimately create lots of
problems, lots of unintended consequences.
Americans expect leadership from their elected officials in
Washington. At a time when partisan dysfunction puts up constant
barriers in the legislative process, we should be doing everything we
can to find common ground and pass legislation that will have immediate
positive impacts on our economy. For so much of the FAA reauthorization
last year and again this year, we found that common ground--except for
this one divisive
[[Page S6204]]
issue that we know ultimately will not become law. It impedes the
opportunity to do what, without almost any exception, Members of the
House and Senate have agreed to.
True FAA reform will dramatically increase the ability of American
aviation manufacturers and businesses to create jobs. This short-term
extension represents yet another regrettably missed opportunity to do
just that.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Alaska.
Tribute to rozann Kimpton
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, every week, I have been coming to the
floor to talk about my State and what I think makes it the greatest
State in the country and in the world. We like to celebrate and
recognize somebody in Alaska who is making a difference for their
community, for the State, and for the country, and we like to call
these extraordinary Alaskan individuals our Alaskan of the Week.
Like many of us here in the Senate, I spent a lot of time recently in
August traveling throughout my home State, and wherever I went, I met
strong, generous, versatile Alaskans, many of whom survive in some of
the harshest conditions on the planet but still have time for their
communities and their families and their neighbors. But, like in many
places around the country, I also saw the scourge of addiction that is
tearing apart communities and tearing apart families.
We have all heard how addiction is often passed down through
generations. There are many in Alaska and many throughout the country
who are determined to break this intergenerational cycle of addiction
and many who are succeeding. We don't always hear about them, but there
are many. So this afternoon I wish to introduce my colleagues to 81-
year-old Rozann Kimpton, our Alaskan of the Week, who is doing that and
a lot more.
Rozann and her husband moved to Alaska from Washington State in 1958,
and they immediately settled in. They ran businesses together,
including a small retail store, and then they got into construction and
contracting. They raised two children. They were a team. About 10 years
ago, they moved to a large plot of land in Wasilla, AK--over 50 acres--
to spend time in retirement, and they made plans: gardening, traveling
around the world. But it didn't take long for Rozann to recognize that
something was wrong--very wrong--in her family, particularly with what
was happening to two of her great-grandchildren, Luke and Amanda. They
were living in a situation that was harmful to them and they needed
help.
At this point, Rozann's husband was also suffering from his own
illness--cancer--but the two of them took Luke and Amanda in and
adopted them. ``It was the only way to make sure they were safe,''
Rozann said. ``And when a kid needs to be taken care of, and when a
mommy and daddy can't, you do it,'' she said. ``I couldn't live with
myself knowing that they were in danger and I did nothing.'' This is
Rozann talking about her two great-grandkids.
That was 10 years ago. Rozann, now a widow, lives with Amanda and
Luke on that big plot of land in Wasilla. Amanda is a senior in high
school, and Luke is an eighth grader. They are great kids. As a matter
of fact, I just had the opportunity to visit with them in my office
yesterday.
Amanda loves geometry. She plays a violin with the Wasilla Youth
Orchestra and drums and dances with the Intertribal Drum Group in
Anchorage. Luke's big dream is to join the Navy, which I think is
great.
The three of them volunteer in their community, helping foster kids.
Amanda makes blankets for the foster kids. Every Sunday, they drive
over 100 miles to attend Emanuel Presbyterian Church in Anchorage,
which is like a second home to all of them.
In addition to all of this, Rozann is the area volunteer coordinator
for Volunteers of America Grandfamilies, a grandparents support group.
Once a month, she has a picnic for her fellow grandparents and other
parents who have adopted kids. The kids play games, eat hamburgers and
hot dogs, and adults sit around the campfire, share stories, and
encourage one another in all the work they are doing. She is in
constant contact with about 25 families, and whenever she spots someone
she thinks might need help with their kids, their grandkids, or their
great-grandkids, she gives them her card.
``I am not a shy person,'' she said. ``I will talk to anyone who
looks like they are struggling, and I am particularly good at spotting
grandparents who are raising kids''--grandparents who are raising kids
throughout our great Nation.
As the opioid crisis is hitting Alaska, just like it is hitting so
many other States, she is seeing more and more grandparents stepping
in. ``It is a plague,'' she said, ``but the most important thing is to
help the children as early as possible, and to do what we can to make
sure they don't carry on that plague.''
Rozann Kimpton is here right now in Washington, DC. As I mentioned, I
had a great meeting with her yesterday. She is here to attend a banquet
where her efforts will be recognized. She is the 2017 recipient of the
Alaska Angels in Adoption Award and will be recognized by the
Congressional Coalition on Adoption.
Rozann, thank you for your warmth and for all your hard work for
Alaska. Congratulations on your award, and congratulations on being our
Alaskan of the Week.
Economic Growth
Mr. President, an issue I have been coming to the Senate floor to
speak about for the past couple of years is an issue that I don't think
we focus on enough here in the Congress, here in the Senate, and that
is the key issue of America's economic growth.
With the exception of national security, strong, robust economic
growth is probably the most important issue we can be focused on in
this body. We certainly have many challenges in this country, but so
many of them are made easier when the American economy is strong, when
job opportunities are plentiful and optimism in the future because of
that strong economic growth is high.
So how have we been doing over the past decade? I want everyone to
take a look at this chart. The answer is, not very well; not very well
at all. This chart shows the gross domestic product--GDP--decade after
decade through different administrations, Democratic and Republican,
over the last several decades. So if we take a look at the chart, we
see Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush 41 and
43, and President Obama. We see where levels have been. We see that
over the years, over the decades, the average economic growth is about
right here--about 4 percent.
There has been a lot of talk about what has made America great and
what makes America great. This is what makes America great: strong,
robust, economic growth decade after decade. That is the key.
So what happened over the past decade, right here? If we take a look
right here at this red line, that is 3 percent. That is not the
traditional level. Traditional levels over 200-plus years of American
history are closer to 4 percent. But 3 percent GDP growth is considered
OK--not bad, not great, but pretty good, and something we should all
aspire to, something we should hit.
When we look at this chart, we see that in the last decade we never
hit it, not even 3 percent GDP growth--more like 1.5, 2 percent. As a
matter of fact, President Obama is the first President in American
history where we never hit 3 percent GDP growth for a year.
I know what some may be thinking. This seems to be a pretty important
issue, right? Economic growth last decade not even hitting 3 percent.
Why wasn't the press writing about that? We didn't hear many stories in
the press about this very important issue--a decade of lost economic
growth. Many of us come to the floor to talk about this critical issue,
and there is a yawn in the Press Gallery. There is no interest. It is
hard to understand why.
One theory I have is that if you look at our country more broadly,
these are the numbers--very, very weak growth--but certain places in
the country over the last 10 years have actually done very well,
especially this city, Washington, DC. It has been growing very strong,
with probably 5, 6 percent growth. Some other places, some of the
coastal big cities, including New York, San Francisco, and Boston, are
all doing well--way higher than 3 percent. They are growing stronger.
So the
[[Page S6205]]
press, in my view, is probably not that interested in this number
because in places like Washington, everything seemed to be going great.
But it wasn't going great.
Think about this: If Washington or L.A. or New York or San Francisco
are growing at 3 or 4 percent growth and yet the country is at about
1.5 or 2 percent, then there are probably huge parts of America that
are actually shrinking, not growing at all.
These charts talk about economic growth, GDP. It can sound a little
bit wonky. Really, GDP is a marker for the health of our economy. It is
an indicator of American progress. It is a proxy for the American dream
and optimism in the future.
As this chart shows, we have had a sick economy over the last 10
years, a lost decade of economic growth. The press hasn't written much
about it, and when they have, they have typically bought the line of
the previous administration saying: Hey, look, we know that the
traditional levels of economic growth are close to 4 percent. Look at
Clinton, look at Reagan--4\1/2\, 5, 6. We know that is the case. We
know 3 percent is OK. But we haven't hit that in the last 10 years, so
what is wrong? Well, the press started buying the line from the last
administration: That is the ``new normal.'' We can't hit 3 percent
anymore. We certainly can't hit 4 percent anymore. So 1\1/2\, 2 percent
is America hitting on all cylinders. I believe that is a surrender. I
believe dumbing down our expectations for economic growth is a retreat
from the American dream.
As you know, the American people aren't buying this. They are not
buying the dumbing down. They are not saying: Oh yeah, we can live with
this 1\1/2\ percent growth. Sure. No problem. They are wise, and they
aren't buying the dumbing down.
We all saw the book recently released by former Senator and Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton, and her book is entitled ``What Happened.''
What happened? This is what happened: Our citizens saw the American
dream slipping away after a lost decade of economic growth, and they
weren't ready to surrender to the new normal.
What do we need to focus on in the Senate? We have to start moving
beyond this. We have to. We need policies that are going to focus on
reigniting growth--the growth that Democrats and Republicans have
supported for decades. What is that? I think there is a lot of
agreement--infrastructure, less burdensome regulations, energy. America
has enormous supplies of energy that we can take advantage of. Yet the
issue we are starting to debate now in the Senate is tax reform.
As we debate this and work in a bipartisan way--I have heard a lot of
my colleagues say that we do need to undertake tax reform. We need to
keep asking ourselves, on all these policies, what they will do to
reignite growth, to reignite the American dream, to allow hard-working
American families to keep more of their paychecks, and to return to the
optimism that comes with a robust economy, not just along the coast of
America but throughout the entire country, to get back to that optimism
and growth. That is what I am going to be doing as we undertake this
debate on tax reform.
The Trump administration is off to an OK start. The first quarter--
again, kind of a hangover from the Obama years--1.2 percent growth.
That is not good at all. The last quarter, second quarter, was 3.1. It
hit above 3 percent, which is what the President says his policies are
meant to do. As long as they are focused on that, I certainly am going
to be somebody who wants to support those kinds of pro-growth policies,
and I think it is imperative, whether it is tax reform, infrastructure,
regulatory reform, or energy, that we all come together in this body
and make sure we work together so the next decade of growth in America
does not look like this last one and gets us over 3 percent, gets us
back to traditional levels of growth. I don't think there is anything
more important we can do in the Senate than getting back to those
important levels of growth for our country and our citizens.
Tribute to Tyler Roberts and Michael Soukup
Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about some of my staff who
have done a great job serving Alaskans and who are leaving my office
soon. I am going to miss them a lot. One is here now, and he will
probably be embarrassed that I am talking about him on the Senate
floor--Tyler Roberts.
Tyler has been a legislative assistant of mine, handling healthcare,
budget, tax. He is leaving to join the private sector. He has been with
me from the beginning, 2\1/2\ years ago. I can tell you this: He has
worked long hours serving the people of our great State and has set a
tone in the office of hard work, diligent work, good-natured, and we
are going to miss Tyler very much.
I wish to also recognize Michael Soukup. Michael is our digital
director and press secretary. From educating Alaskans on what we are
doing in DC to designing poster boards like this, creating awesome
graphics and videos, Michael has been an invaluable member of my team
as well. He is an artist. Like all good artists, his work has a
distinctive look and style. If you see one of my photo montages on
Facebook and you think it is well-done, which we do, you can thank
Michael. We call them Soukup specials.
Tyler has also worked tirelessly for me and Alaska, his home State. I
know that he will bring the same amount of creativity, ingenuity, and
integrity to all he does as he moves into the next phase of his career.
Thank you to all my staff.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________